RIAA strikes out at students

[toine6]

A flawed assumption that property rights are equal to copy rights. Information is not an object, and as such is in no way affected by the dominion of scarcity. Even if you favour intellectual property rights, it is incorrect to compare it to property rights, and is only done so as rhetorical trickery.

Speaking of flawed assumptions... No trickery going on, I just don't have a law degree in definition theory. I don't care what the laws says, or society's definition for that matter, but to me it's stealing. Is stealing bad? There's probably a lot of grey area there. It's at least QUESTIONABLE. People seem to be arguing that it's just fine and dandy to take copywritten work. Is it? I'm just to assume they're right?

[sparlecki]

I think a cease and desist letter followed by punishment is a viable alternative...

[munchkin]

I think a cease and desist letter followed by punishment is a viable alternative...

...with a good whipping in the village square...just for being students.

[seldom]

...

I would like to see you back up where anyone said "home taping is killing music"....hell they encouraged it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_tapin ... ling_music

damn nobody reads my posts...yes, post cd....let's count okay 60-70-80, notice 80 comes after the other two?...I clearly stated then restated 60's,70's and early 80's...that was mid to late 80's...as I said after the cd and dat.... :roll:

no, actually you said "I would like to see you back up where anyone said "home taping is killing music"". which is a simple request with a simple answer. i suggest you re-read or perhaps go back and edit your post.

but that's a good line in immature condecension you've got there! the point being made is that the music industry was claiming that copying music was damaging to the industry long before mp3s, CD burners, etc.

[3*s]

That's just great.

Ruin some 20 year old kid's life for trading a few songs.

More money in some rich douche's pocket.

f**k the RIAA.

Just wait until that 20 year old kid starts stealing YOUR songs.

If I were in a situation like some major recording artist I'd say:

Download some of my songs, check them out, see if you like them. If not, let someone else listen.

If you like my stuff, buy an album.

If someone downloaded lots of my music, like an entire album, I'd expect compensation, I'd have to make money somehow. I would under no circumstances want them to pay 10 times the retail price however.

----

The thing is, if a situation like this exists, I think the world would find that very VERY few people, if any, would get sued for file sharing. Why? Because if people like an artist enough to want to listen to a lot of their music, they'll want to support that person anyway. When someone likes an artist, respect for them comes from that. Think about your favorite musicians. Would you want to rip them off? How many people who have 20 songs from some artist on their computer don't respect that person enough to want to support them?

"I meet people at shows all the time that are like, dude I found you on Napster, I went out and bought your record. I've met Thousands of people, literally, who have said that. Not like 50 or 100, thousands of people, that's the first thing they've said when I met them." -BT

On the other hand, If someone downloads 2 songs by an artist, doesn't buy anything, and goes elsewhere, they wouldn't have bought anything from them anyway. However by downloading, they've spread the artists work around. Now someone else can download them. Maybe the next downloader will become a fan, who would never have heard of this artist if it weren't for file sharing. This behavior exposes people to new music. People who file share, in general, know and respect more artists, an will therefore buy more work from them.


Sound implausible? Why did the recording industry make more money in Napster's prime? Why did they tank the second they started the SUE TEH WORLD policy?


A. They released fewer albums in the coming years (and tried to pin the profit difference on file sharing).

B. They cut off the circulation that file sharing was giving them.

C. They pissed everyone off.

In short,
File sharing = much more circulation = more profits for artists in general, especially ones that don't get that much media attention.

The RIAA isn't dumb however, they know this. What did change drastically however with the coming of file sharing is this:

People weren't buying what was on MTV, they were downloading it. They downloaded a couple songs from X popular artist, saying "eh," then went looking for something else. When your medium for finding music is limitless, obviously people will gravitate to what they like best. When someone limits the medium, people go to the best of the bunch, which might not be that great.

This is what pisses the RIAA off. They can't control the medium of file sharing, only the people can. You can't "market" an artist and guarantee 100% chart topping success. People have to decide for themselves, the RIAA can't decide for them.

If the music is good people will come.

[kaden]

The whole 'Home Taping Is Killing Music' thing started shortly after consumer electronics manufacturers started marketing dual deck cassette machines and boom boxes. CD's at the time weren't much past the 'Proof Of Concept' developement stage.

To suggest otherwise displays a limitted grasp of comparatively recent history.


K

[Arglebargle]

This is what pisses the RIAA off. They can't control the medium of file sharing, only the people can. You can't "market" an artist and guarantee 100% chart topping success. People have to decide for themselves, the RIAA can't decide for them.

If the music is good people will come.

Good point indeed. If the mainstream music scene wasn't choked with clone bands, maybe people wouldn't be so quick to download music illegally.

Then again, music diversity = possible loss of profit, so I don't see the situation changing any time soon.

[Cabinfever]

to suggest its ok if someone just downloads a couple of songs because "they wouldn't have bought a cd anyway" makes some big assumptions.

its like the argument that a poor student using a warez version of cubase "would not have bought it anyway" so there's no loss.

but there is a loss. if that "poor student" did not have the warez cubase he might have *bought* traktion or fl studio instead.

likewise with music. the "poor student" may not have bought the cd, but instead might have listened to a fringe radio station. en masse those new listeners might make the fringe station viable. etc

if you insert parasitic behaviour (ie not paying) at any point in a commercial chain it will effect all other parts of the chain.

[Hink]

The whole 'Home Taping Is Killing Music' thing started shortly after consumer electronics manufacturers started marketing dual deck cassette machines and boom boxes. CD's at the time weren't much past the 'Proof Of Concept' developement stage.

To suggest otherwise displays a limitted grasp of comparatively recent history.


K

that's not accurate as I recall it....were any cassette decks banned from import?...no, but dats were as the record industry fought them tooth and nail. It was digital duplication that started the issue...

[Hink]

...

I would like to see you back up where anyone said "home taping is killing music"....hell they encouraged it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_tapin ... ling_music

damn nobody reads my posts...yes, post cd....let's count okay 60-70-80, notice 80 comes after the other two?...I clearly stated then restated 60's,70's and early 80's...that was mid to late 80's...as I said after the cd and dat....

no, actually you said "I would like to see you back up where anyone said "home taping is killing music"". which is a simple request with a simple answer. i suggest you re-read or perhaps go back and edit your post.

but that's a good line in immature condecension you've got there! the point being made is that the music industry was claiming that copying music was damaging to the industry long before mp3s, CD burners, etc.

please forgive me for assuming you would of checked the other posts before jumping in...

[Hink]

and now I sit here and realize I'm allowing them the power they seek...they want us to argue silly issues like when the industry took a stand against bootlegs...meanwhile they're paying off congressmen to take away our rights to distribute our own music on the web. This is a great example of how well their plan will work, and right now I'm as much to blame.

[herodotus]

to suggest its ok if someone just downloads a couple of songs because "they wouldn't have bought a cd anyway" makes some big assumptions.

its like the argument that a poor student using a warez version of cubase "would not have bought it anyway" so there's no loss.

but there is a loss. if that "poor student" did not have the warez cubase he might have *bought* traktion or fl studio instead.

likewise with music. the "poor student" may not have bought the cd, but instead might have listened to a fringe radio station. en masse those new listeners might make the fringe station viable. etc

if you insert parasitic behaviour (ie not paying) at any point in a commercial chain it will effect all other parts of the chain.

What fringe radio station?

[Markleford]

What fringe radio station?

You know, the one that the RIAA's pals in the FCC shut down...

Just got corporate radio in my neck of the woods. Mostly ClearChannel monopoly shit. Funny how the major labels will payola them to play the shit out of their tunes, and yet people still buy the overplayed albums, hrm?

Free music, and yet people are still buying: what a crazy-ass world we live in!

- m

[xoxos]

feed at joe's *hyno lights hypno lights*

[seldom]

...
please forgive me for assuming you would of checked the other posts before jumping in... :roll:

oh but i would have checked the other posts. in fact i read every post in the thread, which only reinforced the fact that there's nothing new under the sun. the fact is, you asked for someone to prove that the music industry used the slogan "home taping is killing music" and it was duly proven.